His Take is here.

Pretty much a takedown - The Spirituality of Narcissism.  An example:

#2, Since YOU create your own Reality (Oprah went to pains to stress and emphasize this point, and had Rhonda explicitly confirm precisely that phrase "we create our own reality") you are responsible as the Source of whatever arises in your Reality. Every thing in your experience, you created (merely using thoughts and feelings! Wow). Many of you reading this right now may be astonished to finally understand you gave yourself cancer. You caused yourself to be raped, robbed, murdered, stricken with every malady in the canon of illness, beset with each kind of strife imaginable. The Holocaust? Just something Jews brought on themselves, as they each apparently created their own Reality. The Rape of Nanking? Bad Chinese, with their bad thoughts and feelings, simply created their own reality and thus caused the unspeakable murder of 350,000 innocent children, women, and men. Weird, the Reality people create for themselves, ain't it?

Stu then goes on, bringing in some integral theory.  But a good near-last paragraph.

Here's what I feel is a healthier approach. Use the right tool for the right job. The right decoy for the right level. I think it is GOOD to improve our financial station. I think it is GOOD to have an exciting love life. That's why I have a financial advisor. That's why I see a therapist. I need to work on my self. I want to improve my relative reality. But I don't need to invoke "the Universe" or quantum fucking mechanics or magical-narcissistic mysticism to do so. It's a LIE and it's misguided as it gets. Fucking bloody hell. Want to find your Self? See Swami Sally. Want to get a new house? A blow job? See Suzy Ormand and Sue Johansen. Stop it with this Secret shit. It's offensive and detrimental to our work in the Mystery.

Again, like the take from Salon, I pretty much agree.  

I haven't spoken much on the concept of integral relationship.  But there has been a lot of thought on this, from both Gary Stamper, and Bill Harrison.   This post is one of my first reflections on "relationship", so please be kind!

I've had one big issue, a huge stumbling block, to thinking in coherent terms about integral relationship (outside of shadow work, which I have posted on).  And I've mentioned this before over at Bill's house:

There is a tremendous amount of narcissistic exaltation in all thoughts I've read so far, on integral relationship.   This is true, both for myself, and in what I've read from these fellow explorers about integral relationship. 

For one - "getting to integral" in relationship. I'm not sure that relationship should - EVER - be put into an integral box.  Perhaps in thinking about theory, one can talk about integral relationships, but in the relationship itself - it "simply is".  Having 'achievable goals' in an actual, real, relationship, run counter to the spirit of what works in relationship.

So what is the ground?

First off, the ground is  love and acceptance.   And I - think,, don't know - that the level of love and acceptance required is more than is normally thought of.

One thought experiment, to confront the tendency for narcissism directly:  I hope that others may take this up as well.

What happens when you think of your primary relationship the same way you think of, say, a relationship with a child?  You can't "divorce" your child - you have to MAKE THINGS WORK.   Can you imagine if a person said "my child is limiting my growth potential, my spiritual potential, and making me unhappy, with his difficulties and his issues."

You can see the narcissism there, yes?

And yet, in a primary relationship, in a marriage, how often do we see, in divorce, do we see this?  The other is not fulfilling our needs, so we split?

Now, I'm going to be referencing a particular coupling and their splitting here, and one example post.  So when I begin, I want to say up front, the honesty and courage of both of the participators here, is to be commended.   Much more into sharing than me.  As such, I think using their posts is USEFUL, in this experiment.  And here, yes, I'm referencing Kira and Bill, since both have been very upfront in their relationship issues, and their perspectives  (much more so than me!).  And the questions their breakup (when they were attempting to live in integral relationship) are INTERESTING, and, hopefully, USEFUL.)  They have both moved on, and are happy where they are at.  So please don't interpret this as any type of analysis of THEIR relationship, this is just a jumping off point.

Here's part of the "breakup post" from Kira.  I've interspersed "Bill" with "my child" substitutes - again, to highlight the EXPECTATION that we clearly bring to a couple/relationship, that we don't bring to, say, a parent/child relationship:

On Saturday I ended my relationship with Bill [my child] after more than five [18] years together. Our relationship was by far the most important one I've ever had – the most conscious, the deepest, the most authentic and joyful. Some of the hours and days we've shared have been by far the best of my life. For that, I am profoundly grateful.

When Bill and I first became a couple [when I first had my child], I was in a rough place emotionally. I've done an incredible amount of healing during the time we've been together [time I've raised him]. I've become much more grounded, and my worst demons have departed. A formerly exiled subpersonality [my Lost Child] returned and reintegrated. I've learned to trust my intellect much more. I've come to enjoy and even treasure being a woman after decades of fighting it. And I've discovered, contrary to my childhood programming, that I'm deserving of love and kindness. Bill [My child[, too, has done significant growth during these last 5+ years. It's dazzling to me how much healing can take place in an environment of love.

Yet our relationship has also been an emotional roller coaster, and over the past several months I've been so worn down by it that I reached a place where I didn't have any more to give. As Bill has written in his blog, [As my child] he's been in a lot of turmoil – both recently and over the entire time we've been together – and I've been in the line of fire even though it's not about me. The thread that connected us had already been stretched very thin this year, and while we were on vacation it snapped. After returning to Tucson and taking two weeks apart to reflect on our relationship, I came to the conclusion that as deeply as I love him, I can't put myself through this anymore. As sad as that decision is, I know it's the right one.

I believe that couples come together to evolve [believe that a parent and child come together to evolve]. The most fortunate ones find a way to keep evolving together. I was hoping for that in this relationship, and I know Bill [ny child[ was, too. We gave it our best shot, but ultimately we couldn't find a meeting place in the middle that allowed for enough emotional connection for me and enough emotional space for him. One of the great gifts of our relationship is that we each became more respectful of our own bottom line. We reached a place where each of us was no longer willing to sacrifice our individual self for the relationship. David Schnarch calls that “differentiation.” Bill [my kid] and I both knew what a big deal it was to get there. We both believe that a truly healthy relationship is impossible without reaching that point. We helped each other evolve in that and so many other ways. Again, I'm profoundly grateful.

Now - I think the crux of the above is the following - I believe that couples come together to evolve - we all have some similar expectations, and when you talk about "integral relationships, you buy into that mindset and perspective.  I present the quote above, simply to illustrate one example of expectations we bring to a romantic relationship.  Other relationships and people have other expectations.

This is what separates, say, a relationship coupling, from a child/parent coupling.  In a parent/child relationship, you pretty much are stuck - you WORK, and don't give up, at coming to an accomodation, a healthy relationship with your child/parent (on either side).  But in a couple relationship, clearly, there are expectations to be met, and this is how it should be.

Throughout history, of course,  it's been the same with "couple relationships" - til death do you part.  You accept the person as they are - barring deep physical or mental violence in the relationship - and then you work accept/accomodate/relate on a deeper more intimate relationship with that person.  And that is very similar to the relationship with a parent/child, in that the relationship is defined as "not giving up".

Of course, for the last 60 years or so, in the West, we've had a different view of relationship.  That a primary relationship has to be "working", "healthy", "serving me", etc, etc.

And this has been great - we don't have people trapped in unhealthy, unhappy, relationships, as we've seen our parents, grandparents, etc - trapped in.  And why should we, as authentic growing people, be trapped the same way?  Become a dishrag to our "other"? 

We absolutely shouldn't!

And yet, it seems to me, that many people I know, after years of being in relationships, and seeing them fail, END UP - finally - in their 30's, 40's, 50's, etc - in the exact same place of humility.  They accept their partner "as they are", with their foibles, issues, problems, and stupidities, as just part of the landscape OF the person they have chosen to live their life with.  And those issues and problems become tolerated, to an extent, and accomodated, to another extent. And then the relationship goes forward, and "works".

So, where is the line? 

Personally, I have no clue. 

I lived my 20's in the expectation of "perfect spiritual relationship".  And it was wonderful, and also often horrible, as I or the other person, didn't "measure up".  And we pushed more and more the other person, towards what we thought was the "right" expectation.

In my current relationship, we have ups and downs - especially recently, after her rather serious accident of about 6 months ago, and  issues stemming from that accident, making life more challenging for the two of us.

But we are committed to each other, love each other, and accept each other.  It is by no means "perfect".  No, we both have our "stuff". But we make it work, come together, share, have fun, and support each other.

Is that "integral"?  Not really, that I can see.  It's more, as I've said about simply being a practical caring person. Simple things.  Making time for each other.  Creating space for self-expression.  Sometimes arguing. Joking with each other.  Disagreeing, then agreeing to disagree.  Coming back to doing fun things together, and loving.  Doing things that need to be done.

It's much more similar to the 'accepting the person no matter what', and working to accomodate each other without losing one's voice.

But clearly there ARE expectations that we have of our significant other:  Have to be responsible for oneself, in one's life to at least a workable degree (cleanliness, work, etc).  Have to communicate clearly.
What do you see as expectations for a relationship?   And then can you even TALK about "integral relationship"?





 

Here is the link.

Some interesting parts:

The way to build self-discipline is analogous to using progressive weight training to build muscle. This means lifting weights that are close to your limit. Note that when you weight train, you lift weights that are within your ability to lift. You push your muscles until they fail, and then you rest.

Comment:  This seems to be true for some things, but not others.  Example:  I can be disciplined for meditation and exercise, but not, say, IT study.

It’s a mistake to try to push yourself too hard when trying to build self-discipline. If you try to transform your entire life overnight by setting dozens of new goals for yourself and expecting yourself to follow through consistency starting the very next day, you’re almost certain to fail. This is like a person going to the gym for the first time ever and packing 300 pounds on the bench press. You will only look silly.

Again, I'm not sure how true this is.  If I set a goal of 30 minutes meditation, and 30 minutes exercise, I will do those goals, but if I set a goal of 10 minutes guitar playing (which I love) or 10 minutes IT study (which is okay, interesting), that I don't do.

So something else is going on, besides building the "self-discipline" muscle.

Similarly, if you’re very undisciplined right now, you can still use what little discipline you have to build more. The more disciplined you become, the easier life gets. Challenges that were once impossible for you will eventually seem like child’s play. As you get stronger, the same weights will seem lighter and lighter.

Perhaps you try to work a solid 8-hour day without succumbing to distractions, and you can only do it once. The next day you fail utterly. That’s OK. You did one rep of 8 hours. Two is too much for you. So cut back a bit. What duration would allow you to successfully do 5 reps (i.e. a whole week)? Could you work with concentration for one hour a day, five days in a row? If you can’t do that, cut back to 30 minutes or whatever you can do. If you succeed (or if you feel that would be too easy), then increase the challenge (i.e. the resistance).

That example simply isn't my reality.  My own experience is, you truly need at least 30 days, maybe 90, for a new practice to become habitual.  (This is also something that Pavlina says, which is true, in my experience.)

But what will happen with a "new" practice, practiced independently, is that I'll keep it up for a few days, then fall off the wagon, then sporadically continue, until I give up again. (Or come back to that practice a couple of weeks later.)

So, in my case at least (and I'm being honest here about my lack of self-discipline) it seems to me that there are two options, for those who obviously never learned true self-discipline, but simply learned enough to "get by". 

a.  Immersion:  Especially for any new trait, the "AA" route is useful.  Full immersion, and daily support, for the new trait you are attempting to instill - until it becomes a habit.
b. Immersion again - in a program to learn "self-discipline" as a trait, in and of itself, separate from any actual practice.
c.  Bill mentioned this once - work with one's psychology, or inner voices, to understand what inside of one's psychology is indulging in self-sabatoge of growth. 

I would criticize Stve Pavlina, actually, from presenting a "system", or a guide of how-to's, that in a lot of ways, "assumes the close".  Meaning, assumes the self-discipline already exists, with which to "improve".
The A to B straight line of self-improvement that Pavlina endorses, while sounding wonderful, glosses over the challenges to the "normal" person.  As such, is of very limited use, to effectively creating change.